Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Scoop,

Yours is a solid idea. But, you have to look at history. Have we enforced scope, or traded it?

Trading one pilot's job to benefit other pilots is an ugly business for a union to be in, so it is not something done in the light of day. But, when I have brought forward multiple violations of our scope the ONLY actionable response I've EVER received is, "what kind of bargaining leverage does that give us?"

Now when faced with a Constitutional issue on scope (who bargains with Delta management) the Delta MEC prefers to redefine the terms to avoid a conflict over what is "Delta flying."

IMHO, we Delta pilots have great jobs. In large part we are happy with our Company and to some extent by extension, our representation. We are peace loving pacifists and we are represented as such. Until the politics change to the extent that the majority of pilots are willing to recall those who don't desire a fight ... we are wasting our time even thinking about putting non compliance penalties in the contract. (IMHO, our Reps might be right, if they fought and lost they might be unpopular and popularity is the basis for election ... that's just reality)

While few politicians would say they desire non compliance, almost all are willing to trade in it.

I have suggested a requirement that the Company be forced to staff for our share of flying, regardless of whether we do it. If that model is accepted, it would give us the benefit of scope compliance without as great a potential for extended non compliance and the trading that typically resolves the so called problem of noncompliance.

P.S. I still wonder if Contract 2000 was written with expected non compliance. The RJ triggers were exceeded on management's schedule, even though the aircraft orders were negotiated BEFORE C2K negotiations were complete.